Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-09-14
TIE DAILY ARGUS.



proposition that Sir Francis Bacon was
the author of the plays commonly as
cribed to William Shakespeare has re-
ceived fresh impetus through the forth
coming publication of lgnatius Donnel-
ly's book upon the subject. As is well
known the Minnesota scholar claims to
have discovered secret cipher which not
only reveals Bacon's authorship of the
PLAYS, but also relates the secret history
of Queen Elizabeth's court. The claim
is a most astounding one. Indeed, it is
altogether too much Of fairy tale to be
received with anything but incredulity
until its truth is proved beyond all cayil.
Scholars are rendered still more incredu>
lous by the bent of Mr.. DoBnelly's liter
airy tas te. He is mild edition of Jules
Verne. A few years ago ne wrote ro-
nance based upon the mythical island of
the ancients, Atlantis. Later he publish
ed n work aiming to explain certain geo.
graphical facts by the assertion that at
some period OF other the earth had col
slided with comet. Scientists are still
in doubt whether in his calculation of
this theory Mr. Donnelly was really in
earnest or INDUCING in an elaborate jest.
His forthcoming book, howe yer, is not
confined 10 An exposition of this cipher
exclusively He rehearscs every argu-
meat in favor OF Bacons authorship that
has been brought forward within the last
thirty years Chief stress is laid upon
the assertion that Bacon possessed the
knowledge aud learning that must have
belonged 90 The author Of the plays, and
that Shakespeare did not. This is large.
iy matter of opinion In the first place
very little is actually known us to Shakes
pearc's personality Mr. Donnelly's as
sertion that he was an ignorant bOor is
Ouly mere suppOsiuon- In the second
place it is incorrect to claim, as Mr. DON
nelly, and every other advocate of the
Baconian theory, does claim, that the
author of the plays must have been man
Of vast learning There is nothing in the
plays to show that their writer was pro-
found scholar. On the contrary they do
indic4te that he was the very opposite of
pcdant who wastes the midnight oil
and Intellectual vigor at the same time in
storing up the knowledge derived from
books. He must have hcen a man with
profound acquaintance with human
nature, and b remarkable command of
language. all tempered by u marvellous
poetic fancy. But he VAS not pcdant
From the stress laid upon Shakes
peare's alleged ignorance in contradis,
tincti0n to the learning apparent in the
plays, one would suppose that it is the
custom of writers to sit down at their
desk and evolve play, together with all
icaI illusions, from their inner conscious
ness, without the slightest preliminary
preparation. According to the Bacoui>
ans. if the writer displays any technical
knowledge of a ship, it is Prjma facie
evidence he is sailor and if he INDUCES
in Latin praise now and then, why that
is sufficient proof that he is Intimately
acquainted with the language of ancient
Rome. They apparently are unable to
comprehend that before commencing a
play, Shakespeare undoubtedly prepared
himself by reading few easily accessible
hand books upon the subject, precisely as
a modern author would do For instance,
the advocates of the Baconian theory
read Ii few books relating to Shakes
pearc times and in d few DAYS are able
to make glittering display of their learn
ing, which quite intimidates ordinary
people.
The strongest argument in favor of the
accepted authorship of the plays, is the
judgment OF Shakespeare's contempora>
ries. They know the man as he was and
were acquainted with his qualifications,
and none of them seem to have enter
tanned sus picion that he was not the
author Of the works that bear his name.